UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: Ed Stewart <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 23:53:03 -0700 Fwd Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:42:50 -0400 Subject: Re: Failure Of The 'Science' Of Obergian Debunking >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> >From: Jerome Clark <firstname.lastname@example.org> >Subject: Re: Failure Of The 'Science' Of Obergian Debunking >Date: Fri, 16 Oct 98 15:41:15 PDT >>Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 21:21:18 -0700 >>From: Ed Stewart <email@example.com> >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>Subject: Re: Failure Of The 'Science' Of Obergian Debunking >>After hearing the best ufology from the best ufologists, these >>are some of the conclusions of the Sturrock panel. From the >>Summary Report of the Scientific Review Panel: >> "On the other hand, the review panel was not convinced that >>any of the evidence involved currently unknown physical >>processes or pointed to the involvement of an extraterrestrial >>intelligence." >Of course that was not the panel's intention. It was making >judgments from the limited number of cases it looked at. It >found those cases impressive and worthy of further scientific >inquiry, at the end of which - presumably a long process - it >would be possible to come to a far more firm judgment about >the nature and origin of UFO phenomena. The above is a pure fabrication by Jerome Clark. We all know where the report is online. The quotes come from the part of the report directly attributed to the Scientific Review Panel, not Peter Sturrock's rendition. The viewpoints of the Scientific Review Panel are the only ones relevant of consideration, not the paid home team announcer's. >But haven't we gone through this before? Yes we have. It is known as intellectual dishonesty on your part. Give a specific chapter and quote to support your allegation that the review panel was impressed with the cases and they were worthy of further study? You can't quote the scientific review panel because they said just the opposite. Section 14 was written and credited to Peter Sturrock. He is not a member of the review panel. All the sections up to 13 were written by Sturrock and his team which includes partials attributed to the review panel and those parts in essence reflect the summaries they are credited as writers of - exactly the section I quoted from online - the only part of the entire report that is directly credited to the scientific review panel and not Peter Sturrock or his team. >Or are we to be subjected to yet more special pleading - and >quotations out of sense or context - from would-be debunkers. >The Ed Stewarts of the world, alas, seem only to want to >snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Those who want a >more honest and realistic picture of the panel than Stewart >provides ought to go to the SSE website and read the whole >report. Absolutely, but the only part that is independent is the Review Panel's conclusions, not Peter Sturrock's who was hired by LR to organize the whole thing, irrespective of Jerome Clark's interpretation of what the Sturrock Panel is alleged to represent. >Meantime, the rest of us can scratch our heads at >the strange things Ed wants us to believe: that a report >attacked, sometimes virulently, by skeptics and debunkers >is a report that validates the skeptic/debunker position. There is no virulent attack. There is simple quoting exact conclusions from the review panel. Nothing else is needed, not Jerome Clark's pitch, or Peter Sturrock's pitch in attempt to salvage an otherwise weak, disappointing and pathetic showing. The review panel confirmed what I have been arguing online, what Oberg said over twenty years ago. It is that simple. Read the scientific review panel conclusions and stop making up things that the scientific review panel has never said. >Ed's reading of the Sturrock panel is bizarre, but much of what >we hear from this man, as we have seen, answers to that >adjective. It is apparent that you have no respect for accuracy in quoting and attribution. My quoting of the Scientific Review Panel must have been seen as bizarre to you since it does not reflect your intellectual dishonesty which you use to color just about everything you write on this subject. Read the scientific review panel comments and weep. You can't change them. And you can't attribute Peter Sturrock's attempt to salvage a dismal review by the scientific panel to the scientific panel members. Ed Stewart ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Stewart email@example.com |So Man, who here seems principal alone, There Is Something |Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown. Going On! ,>'?'<, |Touches some wheel, or verges to some goal, Salvador Freixedo |'Tis but a part we see, and not a whole. Alexander Pope, Essay on Man ( O O ) ----------------ooOO-(_)-OOoo-------------- Page from the website of: CohenUFO.org
UFO UpDates - Toronto - firstname.lastname@example.org
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
To subscribe please send your first and last name to email@example.com
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page.
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is
not responsible for content. Financial support for this web server is provided by the Research Center
Software by Glenn Campbell. Technical contact: firstname.lastname@example.org
Financial support for this web server is provided by the Research Center Catalog.